A Post That Would Not Be Written
Posted by: Alan in Banned Books Week, Book Reviews, Books
Today’s post was supposed to be a discussion of the reasons Why books are banned. Having written two days in a row about Banned Books Week and having enjoyed the most visitors, page views and comments I’ve yet had in this blog’s short history, I figured it would be a slam dunk to continue the Banned Books theme and keep reeling them in. Unspoken (or perhaps un-thought-of) in this plan was the assumption that censorship and book banning could neatly be blamed on the Religious Right and their attempts to make the United States over in accordance with their own not at all truly Christian agenda.
As is becoming my habit, I started a new discussion thread over at Blog Catalog asking my fellow bloggers for their input on the Whys of censorship, primarily thinking that I could harvest a few good comments to quote and spread some link love and with only three books to discuss, writing this entry would be an easy hour’s work and I could just move on to other things, like the Word Press lessons JD so kindly offered to give me or actually turning off the computer for awhile and reading an actual book as grist for future posts. Sometimes I am really smart and sometimes I am so naive and ignorant as to deserve to be called Stoopid. And after eight hours or so of thinking about this, of reading responses to my BC thread far more eloquent and informed than anything I’ve written, what I am left with are several draft posts I would be embarrassed to publish and a snippet of music from Spandau Ballet’s Journeys To Glory album that won’t budge from my head:
Questions, questions
Give me no answers
All they ever give me is
Questions, questions…To cut a long story short I lost my mind
In a comment on the BC thread, which was of a depth and eloquence greater than 99% of blog posts out there, techfun pointed out that those who advocate for censorship of particular books most often do so out of sincere and well intentioned concerns and that approaching them stridently as ‘enemies of free speech’ is counter-productive, tending to make them more determined in their resolve and resulting in more rather than less censorship.
Then another reply, from scorpy01 pointed out that activists on the far left are no less likely to call for censorship than those on the far right. And as much as my prejudices wanted to scream out ‘oh pulleeze’, the quiet voice of my conscience says that she’s right. And then I read a reply from Dane Morgan who argues that the why of censorship can generally be reduced to fear and arrogance. Fear of the idea to be censored and arrogance in believing oneself qualified to make the judgment that the idea is too dangerous for others to see. This has a ring of truth in my opinion and yet leaves me feeling as though I understand the issue considerably less well than when I began.
To anyone who read my blog today expecting a detailed discussion of why the two Easy Readers about families with same gender parents are innocuous and belong in school libraries and a Christopher Hitchens style rant on why it’s all the Religious Right’s fault, I apologize. After thinking about and discussing the issue all day I found that I could not write that post.
I still believe that books should not be banned and I’m certain that I will observe and write about Banned Books Week again next year. But I will do so with a bit less arrogance, a bit less certainty and a bit more compassion in my heart for people I have seen only as enemies. And maybe by then I will be ready to write a post explaining the Why of censorship.
Entries (RSS)
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 am
Now that was an eloquent post. Sometimes the most difficult and most important thing to write is that the answers aren’t all that easy or all that cut and dried.
And the dichotomy of the enemy who suddenly isn’t as alien as before is an odd thing. I first experienced this feeling with an “actual” enemy while in the Army. I suddenly came to the realization that I had more in common with these men with guns watching me watch them with guns than I did with the 300,000,000 people across an ocean for whom I was pointing the guns.
It didn’t mean they were right, or I was wrong (or the other way round), it simply meant they were human, they were afraid, they were certain, and we had common ground.
Most often we do have common ground. We just don’t always have an easy time of identifying it. (Most) Republicans don’t really want to starve schoolchildren. (Most) Democrats don’t really want to eliminate capitalism. (Most) often the disagreements aren’t about what we want, but rather how we get there.
And (Most) of us really believe that the map we have is best for all is only everyone would open their eyes. And if we’d all just open out hearts and our ears (Most) of us would see that just a little more often.
I sure hope it doesn’t sound like I’m preaching here. I’m on the sinners list.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 am
That was perfect. And well worth staying awake, waiting for it!
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 am
“This . . . leaves me feeling as though I understand the issue considerably less well than when I began.”
Honest learning is often like that.
Good post.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
I often end up feeling that way too when I take the time to really look at an issue. The US news media and political arena is very big on making things huge black and white issues. That makes it much easier for pollsters to provide the data that will shape the next day’s sound bites.
There is a huge disconnect in the culture of the United States when it comes to issues like censorship. These are blown up into big fights between “us” and “them”. When you get down to individuals dealing with other individuals compromise comes naturally. As an adult, I have never had an individual try to stop me from reading anything. I have never found a person with whom I couldn’t reach an understanding that would allow us to peacefully agree to disagree.
I honestly believe that a lot of the controversy involved community or individual pressure on libraries can be addressed by sitting both sides down to work out a deal. Often the people complaining about books are just looking for some indication that that there opinions are being heard. Compromises can never be reached when both sides are shouting from atop their soapboxes.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
Dane,
That didn’t seem preachy at all to me. It came across as heartfelt and powerful.
Marisa,
Thanks so much for your input. You’ve really made me think about things I hadn’t considered.
Mark,
When I first saw your comment what popped into my mind was Gloria Steinem. I realize those are your initals but it’s a very eye-catching handle.
JD,
I have to say that a lot of times I have been one of those strident types who shrilly buy into the black and white, either/or myth. Your grayscale perception inspires me.
My heartfelt thanks to all of you.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
I think censorship is evil. Controlling what people see and hear is just a means of trying to control thought. It is intolerance and bigotry in one of it’s most blatant forms.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 am
Why would anyone ban a book??? If you dont want to read it, CLOSE IT!!!
118
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 am
I totally agree, Dawn. And I am so thankful to the blog catalogers who helped me see that I can be much more effective in working against it if I am less angry about it. This thread and post have been a huge learning experience for me.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Friend
I’m kind of sorry I started all this . . . But then, I relate censurship to book burning or banning . . . And in the end it all relates to fear. You know that everytime a country has a Coup, the first things to go are our most cherished resources of thought . . . Books, teachers, leaders, and on down the line. And it’s always easy to find reasons for any action . . . Again, I didn’t mean to create a problem, I just thought my links deserved a fight . . . Dan H.
Dreams are yours to share.
Dan Hanosh
Dreams Are Yours To Share